1. The petitioner is a registered political party, which has approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order, directing IInd Additional Session Judge District Durg, in whose Court the 9 accused persons are being tried for commission of the murder of one Shankar Guha Neogi, a trade union leader, to hold the trial in open Court and other relief.

2. The first grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court instead of holding the trial in Open Court is holding it iii camera, which cannot be held as section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Code) indicates that the place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of enquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which, the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them; the restriction contemplated is number of persons which could be contained in the premises where the Court sits. Sushree Nandita Haksar, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kehar Singh v. State [AIR 1988 SC 1883 (Delhi Admn.)].

3. Every Court of justice is open to every citizen. Publicity is the authentic hall-mark of judicial as distinct from administrative procedure, the Criminal trial or enquiry is not an exception. The actual presence of the public is never of course necessary, however, the Court must be open to any, who may present themselves for admission as public Court houses are said to be temples of justice where all who seek justice may enter and where none, being called on to help in justice being administered should refuse to come. That justice should be properly administered in the interest of all and not merely of the parties in a particular case. It is for this reason that the highest in the land together with the lowest have entered the portraits of Courts of law without hesitation and with prayerful humility.

4. In case of Kehar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering the case of holding the trial in jail has observed that section 327 of the Code is clear, and wherever the trial is held it becomes a venue of trial of a Criminal case, it is deemed to be in law an open place and everyone who wants to go and attend it is open for him except the restriction contemplated in respect of number of persons which may be contained in the premises where the Court sits. The Court further observed in para 183 thus:

"It may now be stated without contradiction that Jail is not a prohibited place for trial of Criminal cases. Nor the jail trial can be regarded as an illegitimate trial. There can be trial in jail premises for reasons of security to the parties, witnesses and for other valid reasons. The enquiry or trial, however, must be conducted in open Court. There should not be any veil of secrecy in the proceedings. There should not even be an impression that it is a secret trial. The dynamics of judicial process should be thrown open to the public at every stage. The public must have reasonable access to the place of trial. The Presiding Judge must have full control of the Court House. The accused must have all facilities to have a fair trial and all safeguards to avoid prejudice."

5. Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submitted that considering the paucity of the space, and the trial being of a trade union leader, the Special Public Prosecutor made a prayer for holding the trial in Camera, which was not opposed by the accused persons, therefore, the Trial Court ordered trial to be held in Camera so as to avoid inconvenience to the all concerns as the Court room is not enough to accommodate large number of public. In the opinion of this Court the order of holding trial in Camera is based on a misconceived notion. The Court room is a temple of justice, where everybody including parties and the complai